Architect Archive
Thread: Long Term Income System Repeat Customers
We all want long term income and experimenting...but I think harvesters and factories shouldn't be experimented on themselves...they all take way too much materials and components to be effective for the average Architect...so here's my idea...
All Harvesters and Factories should be the same when built except they should all need a part to operate...for Harvesters it will be Drills and Pumps these parts can be installed by anyone and will solely effect the extraction rate of the harvesters they are installed on. These Parts should also decay maybe after drilling/extracting a certain amount of materials...Maybe have more than one type of part for each size harvester..specializing in certain types of materials like a bonus for Metals...This is the kinda depth that we as Architect deserve...
...Instead of experimenting on the whole harvester we just need to excrement on these parts...might invoke competition among Architects. Customers will shop around for the best type Drill (or whatever type of part they are looking for) for the type material they're harvesting..
This is just one of my ideas let me know what you think.
Now this isn't a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.
Now if we could just get them to make resource shifts farther apart, more resources per planet, different resources per planet we'd be set. If they did this, I'd even be willing to double maintenance as I wouldn't need to move the dang things so **edit** often. =) More money out, same resources in for more convienence. This is what SOE should be trying to find to solve their problems. =)
I don't like this idea. It just gives the idea for architects to be lazy. It doesn't diversify the market. Now instead of experimenting on 3-10 combines, you only experiment on 1.
I like it the way it is. My harvester that I experiment on the ore mining unit and the final combine is better (because of hopper size) than your harvester which only has the ore mining unit experimented on. I don't see that this idea will solve any kind of repeat business problems.
Not to mention coding of a disposable part that is inserted into a static unit will likely be a pain in the ass. From a coding aspect this isn't something that's readily feasible. I still think there is a lot of work that needs to be done and hashed out before decay is introduced to our items in any form. BUt hey... that's just my opinion.
CandaVespin wrote:
I don't like this idea. It just gives the idea for architects to be lazy. It doesn't diversify the market. Now instead of experimenting on 3-10 combines, you only experiment on 1.
I like it the way it is. My harvester that I experiment on the ore mining unit and the final combine is better (because of hopper size) than your harvester which only has the ore mining unit experimented on. I don't see that this idea will solve any kind of repeat business problems.
Not to mention coding of a disposable part that is inserted into a static unit will likely be a pain in the ass. From a coding aspect this isn't something that's readily feasible. I still think there is a lot of work that needs to be done and hashed out before decay is introduced to our items in any form. BUt hey... that's just my opinion.
Actually, the experimented combines will be identical atm. One for the ore unit(extraction rate), and one for the final combine(hopper size). That is all that is showing relevance right now with harvestors. Whether you pull them into 2 pieces or not, it still works out the same. It just allows for a removable/interchangable part that can decay.
As for coding, that's just a devs job, he gets paid to code, so the least we should do is give them some work to do to make the game better. =)